Hi there,In this assessment, I am taking Volvo as my company and in Volvo, it has two branches one is trucks and the second one is cars, so I am taking Volvo trucks. Second Volvo is a lean start up so you have think aboout it according to that.
12079631_Ikechukwu_Iheanacho _A1.docx by Ikechukwu Iheanacho Submission date: 22-Aug-2018 01:01PM (UTC+1000) Submission ID: 992017408 File name: 71754_Ikechukwu_Iheanacho_12079631_Ikechukwu_Iheanacho_A1_707266_920843604.docx Word count: 3217 Character count: 22764 1 Citat ion Needed 2 3 4 5 Support 6 7% SIMILARITY INDEX 4% INTERNET SOURCES 1% PUBLICATIONS 5% STUDENT PAPERS 1 2% 2 1% 3 1% 4 1% 5 1% 6 <1% 7=""><1% 12079631_ikechukwu_iheanacho_a1.docx="" originality="" report="" primary="" sources="" submitted="" to="" central="" queensland="" university="" student="" paper="" han="" chao,="" chung="" lin,="" steven="" henderso.="" "chapter="" 1="" how="" industrial="" clusters="" and="" regional="" innovation="" systems="" impact="" the="" knowledge="" innovation="" within="" the="" taiwanese="" science-based="" parks="" firms?",="" intech,="" 2012="" publicat="" ion="" www.slideshare.net="" internet="" source="" submitted="" to="" glasgow="" clyde="" college="" student="" paper="" submitted="" to="" university="" of="" warwick="" student="" paper="" submitted="" to="" billy="" blue="" group="" student="" paper="" www.scribd.com="" internet="" source="" appswl.elsevier.es="" 8=""><1% 9=""><1% 10=""><1% 11=""><1% 12=""><1% exclude quotes on exclude bibliography on exclude matches of f internet source www.oeconomicae.com internet source essay.utwente.nl internet source www.spirit.bfh.ch internet source edepot.wur.nl internet source qm final grade 44/50 12079631_ikechukwu_iheanacho_a1.docx grademark report general comments instructor hi, well done – this “innovation trend” task was a pleasure to read and a highly distinct assignment! i enjoyed reading your work. it was really well written, with a clear structure and strong crit ique & explanation of the business activit ies and capabilit ies f or innovation, key alignment f actors and recommendations. you have used the models and ideas ef f ectively. provided appropriate examples and the required number of sources and appendixes. a very pleasing ef f ort. well done. dr khalil page 1 page 2 comment 1 this executive summary shows a good ef f ort in mapping out your report. page 3 page 4 citation needed cite source: please use the link below to f ind links to inf ormation regarding specif ic citation styles: http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_citation_styles.html comment 2 succinctly introduce the selected organization and selected innovation trend. qm good engagement with the topic. page 5 comment 3 ef f ective use of multiple citations. comment 4 for improvement attention to maintain a link between the theoretical concept and the chosen practical case "tesla". page 6 comment 5 good ef f ort here support support needed: a well-written paper will include strong support f or its thesis. support f or your thesis should come f rom primary (original documents, interviews, and personal experiences) and secondary (inf ormation that has been processed or interpreted by someone else) sources. to use your support ef f ectively, you must elaborate upon the inf ormation, quotations, and examples taken f rom your sources and connect them to your thesis. it is also important to remember to cite the sources of the evidence and support you use in your paper. page 7 comment 6 well done. page 8 page 9 page 10 page 11 rubric: mgmt20132 a1 t2 2018 criterion 1 (60%) not shown (0) poor (1) unsatisfactory (2) satisfactory (3) good (4) very good (5) excellent (6) criterion 2 (10%) not shown (0) poor (1) unsatisfactory (2) satisfactory (3) 5.30 / 6 5 / 6 thorough understanding of relevant innovation management concepts, principles, theories, tools and models in regards to the assessment tasks. non-existent or entirely irrelevant or incomprehensible. no key issues identif ied. crit ical analysis not evident. limited use of sources of knowledge. limited application of principles, concepts, methods and theories relevant to the set task. few key issues identif ied. crit ical analysis below standard. insuf f icient use of sources of knowledge. some application of principles, concepts, methods and theories relevant to the set task. some key issues identif ied. reasons logically f rom gathered inf ormation and reaches logical conclusions. good use of sources of knowledge. application of some principles, concepts, methods and theories relevant to the set task. an acceptable number of issues identif ied. reasons logically, skilf ully and impartially f rom gathered inf ormation and reaches logical conclusions. good use of a range of sources of knowledge. application of principles, concepts, methods and theories relevant to the set task. most key issues identif ied. ability to reason logically and impartially f rom gathered inf ormation and reach reliable and trustworthy conclusions. scholarly use of a wide range of sources of knowledge. competent application of relevant principles, concepts, methods and theories relevant to the set task. all key issues expertly identif ied and canvassed. superior ability to reason logically and impartially f rom gathered inf ormation and reach reliable and trustworthy conclusions. highly prof icient and scholarly use of a wide range of relevant sources of knowledge and data. scholarly application of relevant principles, concepts, methods and theories relevant to the set task. 5 / 6 appropriate and well-structured, concise and clear expression of innovation management arguments. non-existent or entirely irrelevant or incomprehensible. structure and clarity is an area needing signif icant improvement. arguments, if evidenced, are not developed or supported. structure and clarity is an area needing improvement. arguments are not well developed. arguments are not easy to understand. arguments are not well supported. some structure is evident. arguments are somewhat developed. arguments are somewhat easy to understand. arguments are somewhat supported. good (4) very good (5) excellent (6) criterion 3 (10%) not shown (0) poor (1) unsatisfactory (2) satisfactory (3) good (4) very good (5) excellent (6) criterion 4 (10%) not shown (0) poor (1) structured and logically developed arguments. arguments are supported by evidence. structured and logically developed arguments. arguments are clearly supported by evidence. well-structured and concise written logical arguments. arguments are developed in a scholarly f ashion supported by clear evidence. 6 / 6 clear f low of thought throughout the paper with a clear and succinct purpose described in the introduction and a clear and succinct conclusion. non-existent or entirely irrelevant or incomprehensible. the f low of thought is a signif icant improvement area. the use of paragraphs is a signif icant improvement area. non-existent introduction. the purpose is not described. the assessment f ails to provide any clear evidence of the ideas presented, drawing no clear conclusions. it is dif f icult to f ollow the f low of thought. the use of paragraphs is insuf f icient. substandard introduction. the purpose is unclear. the assessment provides limited evidence of the ideas presented, drawing no clear conclusions. the f low of thought is ok. paragraphs are reasonably linked. fair introduction, the purpose is somewhat clear. the assessment somewhat provides detailed and f ocused summary of the ideas presented, drawing limited conclusions. the f low of thought is good. paragraphs are reasonably linked. ok introduction, the purpose is clear. the assessment presents a f airly detailed and f ocused summary of the ideas presented, providing some evidence of conclusions. the f low of thought is very good. paragraphs are well linked. good introduction, the purpose is clear and crisp. the assessment presents a very good summary of the ideas presented; drawing f airly clear and well thought-out conclusions. well-written with a clear f low of thought, a pleasure to read. excellent introduction, providing a very clear purpose which ensures all areas relevant to the topic are clearly outlined. the assessment presents an excellent summary of the ideas presented, drawing clear and well thought-out conclusions. 6 / 6 crit ical review skills and integration of relevant academic and prof ession literature. a minimum of eight (8) academic journals must be used. non-existent or entirely irrelevant or incomprehensible. uncrit ical use of resources. utilises no current, appropriate and credible sources. unsatisfactory (2) satisfactory (3) good (4) very good (5) excellent (6) criterion 5 (5%) not shown (0) poor (1) unsatisfactory (2) satisfactory (3) good (4) very good (5) excellent (6) criterion 6 (5%) not shown (0) poor (1) unsatisfactory (2) uncrit ical use of resources. utilises f ew appropriate and credible sources which provide limited support to the student’s argument throughout. somewhat crit ical use of sources. five (5) relevant resources used. utilises f ew current, appropriate and credible sources which provide limited support to the student’s argument throughout. mostly crit ical use of sources. utilises some current, appropriate and credible sources which at t imes support the student’s argument throughout. crit ical use of sources. good paraphrasing. utilises mostly current, appropriate and credible sources which mostly support the student’s argument throughout. crit ical use of sources. excellent paraphrasing. utilises current, appropriate and credible sources which strongly support the student’s argument throughout. 6 / 6 appropriate in text ref erencing and ref erence list. adherence to cquniversity apa ref erence style. non-existent or entirely irrelevant or incomprehensible. ref erencing contains signif icant inaccuracies. ref erencing is insuf f icient. some inaccuracies in use of correct ref erencing style. reasonable skills in use of correct ref erencing style. skills demonstrated in use of correct ref erencing style. superior skill demonstrated in use of correct ref erencing style. 6 / 6 clarity of expression, grammar and spelling. appropriate presentation f ormat within (±10%) of the word limit: 2000 words. non-existent or entirely irrelevant or incomprehensible. signif icant inaccuracies in use of language and syntax. many spelling mistakes. no evidence of proof reading. report f ormat inadequate. less than 1800 words. insuf f icient use of language and syntax. several spelling mistakes. litt le evidence of proof reading. report f ormat inadequate. less than 1800 words. satisfactory (3) good (4) very good (5) excellent (6) generally, reasonably correct use of language. frequent grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes. use of inappropriate language. report set out in f air manner. generally correct use of language. few grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes. report well set out. correct use of language. few grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes. report expertly set out. scholarly use of correct language throughout. correct grammar, spelling and punctuation. report expertly and scholarly set out. 12079631_ikechukwu_iheanacho_a1.docx by ikechukwu iheanacho 12079631_ikechukwu_iheanacho_a1.docx originality report primary sources 12079631_ikechukwu_iheanacho_a1.docx grademark report final grade general comments instructor rubric: mgmt20132 a1 t2 2018 5.30 / 6 w w w .volvogroup.com th e v o lvo g ro u p 2 0 18 volvo group annual and sustainability report 2018 driving prosperity http://www.volvogroup.com driving prosperity through transport solutions the volvo group’s mission statement expresses a exclude="" quotes="" on="" exclude="" bibliography="" on="" exclude="" matches="" of="" f="" internet="" source="" www.oeconomicae.com="" internet="" source="" essay.utwente.nl="" internet="" source="" www.spirit.bfh.ch="" internet="" source="" edepot.wur.nl="" internet="" source="" qm="" final="" grade="" 44/50="" 12079631_ikechukwu_iheanacho_a1.docx="" grademark="" report="" general="" comments="" instructor="" hi,="" well="" done="" –="" this="" “innovation="" trend”="" task="" was="" a="" pleasure="" to="" read="" and="" a="" highly="" distinct="" assignment!="" i="" enjoyed="" reading="" your="" work.="" it="" was="" really="" well="" written,="" with="" a="" clear="" structure="" and="" strong="" crit="" ique="" &="" explanation="" of="" the="" business="" activit="" ies="" and="" capabilit="" ies="" f="" or="" innovation,="" key="" alignment="" f="" actors="" and="" recommendations.="" you="" have="" used="" the="" models="" and="" ideas="" ef="" f="" ectively.="" provided="" appropriate="" examples="" and="" the="" required="" number="" of="" sources="" and="" appendixes.="" a="" very="" pleasing="" ef="" f="" ort.="" well="" done.="" dr="" khalil="" page="" 1="" page="" 2="" comment="" 1="" this="" executive="" summary="" shows="" a="" good="" ef="" f="" ort="" in="" mapping="" out="" your="" report.="" page="" 3="" page="" 4="" citation="" needed="" cite="" source:="" please="" use="" the="" link="" below="" to="" f="" ind="" links="" to="" inf="" ormation="" regarding="" specif="" ic="" citation="" styles:="" http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_citation_styles.html="" comment="" 2="" succinctly="" introduce="" the="" selected="" organization="" and="" selected="" innovation="" trend.="" qm="" good="" engagement="" with="" the="" topic.="" page="" 5="" comment="" 3="" ef="" f="" ective="" use="" of="" multiple="" citations.="" comment="" 4="" for="" improvement="" attention="" to="" maintain="" a="" link="" between="" the="" theoretical="" concept="" and="" the="" chosen="" practical="" case="" "tesla".="" page="" 6="" comment="" 5="" good="" ef="" f="" ort="" here="" support="" support="" needed:="" a="" well-written="" paper="" will="" include="" strong="" support="" f="" or="" its="" thesis.="" support="" f="" or="" your="" thesis="" should="" come="" f="" rom="" primary="" (original="" documents,="" interviews,="" and="" personal="" experiences)="" and="" secondary="" (inf="" ormation="" that="" has="" been="" processed="" or="" interpreted="" by="" someone="" else)="" sources.="" to="" use="" your="" support="" ef="" f="" ectively,="" you="" must="" elaborate="" upon="" the="" inf="" ormation,="" quotations,="" and="" examples="" taken="" f="" rom="" your="" sources="" and="" connect="" them="" to="" your="" thesis.="" it="" is="" also="" important="" to="" remember="" to="" cite="" the="" sources="" of="" the="" evidence="" and="" support="" you="" use="" in="" your="" paper.="" page="" 7="" comment="" 6="" well="" done.="" page="" 8="" page="" 9="" page="" 10="" page="" 11="" rubric:="" mgmt20132="" a1="" t2="" 2018="" criterion="" 1="" (60%)="" not="" shown="" (0)="" poor="" (1)="" unsatisfactory="" (2)="" satisfactory="" (3)="" good="" (4)="" very="" good="" (5)="" excellent="" (6)="" criterion="" 2="" (10%)="" not="" shown="" (0)="" poor="" (1)="" unsatisfactory="" (2)="" satisfactory="" (3)="" 5.30="" 6="" 5="" 6="" thorough="" understanding="" of="" relevant="" innovation="" management="" concepts,="" principles,="" theories,="" tools="" and="" models="" in="" regards="" to="" the="" assessment="" tasks.="" non-existent="" or="" entirely="" irrelevant="" or="" incomprehensible.="" no="" key="" issues="" identif="" ied.="" crit="" ical="" analysis="" not="" evident.="" limited="" use="" of="" sources="" of="" knowledge.="" limited="" application="" of="" principles,="" concepts,="" methods="" and="" theories="" relevant="" to="" the="" set="" task.="" few="" key="" issues="" identif="" ied.="" crit="" ical="" analysis="" below="" standard.="" insuf="" f="" icient="" use="" of="" sources="" of="" knowledge.="" some="" application="" of="" principles,="" concepts,="" methods="" and="" theories="" relevant="" to="" the="" set="" task.="" some="" key="" issues="" identif="" ied.="" reasons="" logically="" f="" rom="" gathered="" inf="" ormation="" and="" reaches="" logical="" conclusions.="" good="" use="" of="" sources="" of="" knowledge.="" application="" of="" some="" principles,="" concepts,="" methods="" and="" theories="" relevant="" to="" the="" set="" task.="" an="" acceptable="" number="" of="" issues="" identif="" ied.="" reasons="" logically,="" skilf="" ully="" and="" impartially="" f="" rom="" gathered="" inf="" ormation="" and="" reaches="" logical="" conclusions.="" good="" use="" of="" a="" range="" of="" sources="" of="" knowledge.="" application="" of="" principles,="" concepts,="" methods="" and="" theories="" relevant="" to="" the="" set="" task.="" most="" key="" issues="" identif="" ied.="" ability="" to="" reason="" logically="" and="" impartially="" f="" rom="" gathered="" inf="" ormation="" and="" reach="" reliable="" and="" trustworthy="" conclusions.="" scholarly="" use="" of="" a="" wide="" range="" of="" sources="" of="" knowledge.="" competent="" application="" of="" relevant="" principles,="" concepts,="" methods="" and="" theories="" relevant="" to="" the="" set="" task.="" all="" key="" issues="" expertly="" identif="" ied="" and="" canvassed.="" superior="" ability="" to="" reason="" logically="" and="" impartially="" f="" rom="" gathered="" inf="" ormation="" and="" reach="" reliable="" and="" trustworthy="" conclusions.="" highly="" prof="" icient="" and="" scholarly="" use="" of="" a="" wide="" range="" of="" relevant="" sources="" of="" knowledge="" and="" data.="" scholarly="" application="" of="" relevant="" principles,="" concepts,="" methods="" and="" theories="" relevant="" to="" the="" set="" task.="" 5="" 6="" appropriate="" and="" well-structured,="" concise="" and="" clear="" expression="" of="" innovation="" management="" arguments.="" non-existent="" or="" entirely="" irrelevant="" or="" incomprehensible.="" structure="" and="" clarity="" is="" an="" area="" needing="" signif="" icant="" improvement.="" arguments,="" if="" evidenced,="" are="" not="" developed="" or="" supported.="" structure="" and="" clarity="" is="" an="" area="" needing="" improvement.="" arguments="" are="" not="" well="" developed.="" arguments="" are="" not="" easy="" to="" understand.="" arguments="" are="" not="" well="" supported.="" some="" structure="" is="" evident.="" arguments="" are="" somewhat="" developed.="" arguments="" are="" somewhat="" easy="" to="" understand.="" arguments="" are="" somewhat="" supported.="" good="" (4)="" very="" good="" (5)="" excellent="" (6)="" criterion="" 3="" (10%)="" not="" shown="" (0)="" poor="" (1)="" unsatisfactory="" (2)="" satisfactory="" (3)="" good="" (4)="" very="" good="" (5)="" excellent="" (6)="" criterion="" 4="" (10%)="" not="" shown="" (0)="" poor="" (1)="" structured="" and="" logically="" developed="" arguments.="" arguments="" are="" supported="" by="" evidence.="" structured="" and="" logically="" developed="" arguments.="" arguments="" are="" clearly="" supported="" by="" evidence.="" well-structured="" and="" concise="" written="" logical="" arguments.="" arguments="" are="" developed="" in="" a="" scholarly="" f="" ashion="" supported="" by="" clear="" evidence.="" 6="" 6="" clear="" f="" low="" of="" thought="" throughout="" the="" paper="" with="" a="" clear="" and="" succinct="" purpose="" described="" in="" the="" introduction="" and="" a="" clear="" and="" succinct="" conclusion.="" non-existent="" or="" entirely="" irrelevant="" or="" incomprehensible.="" the="" f="" low="" of="" thought="" is="" a="" signif="" icant="" improvement="" area.="" the="" use="" of="" paragraphs="" is="" a="" signif="" icant="" improvement="" area.="" non-existent="" introduction.="" the="" purpose="" is="" not="" described.="" the="" assessment="" f="" ails="" to="" provide="" any="" clear="" evidence="" of="" the="" ideas="" presented,="" drawing="" no="" clear="" conclusions.="" it="" is="" dif="" f="" icult="" to="" f="" ollow="" the="" f="" low="" of="" thought.="" the="" use="" of="" paragraphs="" is="" insuf="" f="" icient.="" substandard="" introduction.="" the="" purpose="" is="" unclear.="" the="" assessment="" provides="" limited="" evidence="" of="" the="" ideas="" presented,="" drawing="" no="" clear="" conclusions.="" the="" f="" low="" of="" thought="" is="" ok.="" paragraphs="" are="" reasonably="" linked.="" fair="" introduction,="" the="" purpose="" is="" somewhat="" clear.="" the="" assessment="" somewhat="" provides="" detailed="" and="" f="" ocused="" summary="" of="" the="" ideas="" presented,="" drawing="" limited="" conclusions.="" the="" f="" low="" of="" thought="" is="" good.="" paragraphs="" are="" reasonably="" linked.="" ok="" introduction,="" the="" purpose="" is="" clear.="" the="" assessment="" presents="" a="" f="" airly="" detailed="" and="" f="" ocused="" summary="" of="" the="" ideas="" presented,="" providing="" some="" evidence="" of="" conclusions.="" the="" f="" low="" of="" thought="" is="" very="" good.="" paragraphs="" are="" well="" linked.="" good="" introduction,="" the="" purpose="" is="" clear="" and="" crisp.="" the="" assessment="" presents="" a="" very="" good="" summary="" of="" the="" ideas="" presented;="" drawing="" f="" airly="" clear="" and="" well="" thought-out="" conclusions.="" well-written="" with="" a="" clear="" f="" low="" of="" thought,="" a="" pleasure="" to="" read.="" excellent="" introduction,="" providing="" a="" very="" clear="" purpose="" which="" ensures="" all="" areas="" relevant="" to="" the="" topic="" are="" clearly="" outlined.="" the="" assessment="" presents="" an="" excellent="" summary="" of="" the="" ideas="" presented,="" drawing="" clear="" and="" well="" thought-out="" conclusions.="" 6="" 6="" crit="" ical="" review="" skills="" and="" integration="" of="" relevant="" academic="" and="" prof="" ession="" literature.="" a="" minimum="" of="" eight="" (8)="" academic="" journals="" must="" be="" used.="" non-existent="" or="" entirely="" irrelevant="" or="" incomprehensible.="" uncrit="" ical="" use="" of="" resources.="" utilises="" no="" current,="" appropriate="" and="" credible="" sources.="" unsatisfactory="" (2)="" satisfactory="" (3)="" good="" (4)="" very="" good="" (5)="" excellent="" (6)="" criterion="" 5="" (5%)="" not="" shown="" (0)="" poor="" (1)="" unsatisfactory="" (2)="" satisfactory="" (3)="" good="" (4)="" very="" good="" (5)="" excellent="" (6)="" criterion="" 6="" (5%)="" not="" shown="" (0)="" poor="" (1)="" unsatisfactory="" (2)="" uncrit="" ical="" use="" of="" resources.="" utilises="" f="" ew="" appropriate="" and="" credible="" sources="" which="" provide="" limited="" support="" to="" the="" student’s="" argument="" throughout.="" somewhat="" crit="" ical="" use="" of="" sources.="" five="" (5)="" relevant="" resources="" used.="" utilises="" f="" ew="" current,="" appropriate="" and="" credible="" sources="" which="" provide="" limited="" support="" to="" the="" student’s="" argument="" throughout.="" mostly="" crit="" ical="" use="" of="" sources.="" utilises="" some="" current,="" appropriate="" and="" credible="" sources="" which="" at="" t="" imes="" support="" the="" student’s="" argument="" throughout.="" crit="" ical="" use="" of="" sources.="" good="" paraphrasing.="" utilises="" mostly="" current,="" appropriate="" and="" credible="" sources="" which="" mostly="" support="" the="" student’s="" argument="" throughout.="" crit="" ical="" use="" of="" sources.="" excellent="" paraphrasing.="" utilises="" current,="" appropriate="" and="" credible="" sources="" which="" strongly="" support="" the="" student’s="" argument="" throughout.="" 6="" 6="" appropriate="" in="" text="" ref="" erencing="" and="" ref="" erence="" list.="" adherence="" to="" cquniversity="" apa="" ref="" erence="" style.="" non-existent="" or="" entirely="" irrelevant="" or="" incomprehensible.="" ref="" erencing="" contains="" signif="" icant="" inaccuracies.="" ref="" erencing="" is="" insuf="" f="" icient.="" some="" inaccuracies="" in="" use="" of="" correct="" ref="" erencing="" style.="" reasonable="" skills="" in="" use="" of="" correct="" ref="" erencing="" style.="" skills="" demonstrated="" in="" use="" of="" correct="" ref="" erencing="" style.="" superior="" skill="" demonstrated="" in="" use="" of="" correct="" ref="" erencing="" style.="" 6="" 6="" clarity="" of="" expression,="" grammar="" and="" spelling.="" appropriate="" presentation="" f="" ormat="" within="" (±10%)="" of="" the="" word="" limit:="" 2000="" words.="" non-existent="" or="" entirely="" irrelevant="" or="" incomprehensible.="" signif="" icant="" inaccuracies="" in="" use="" of="" language="" and="" syntax.="" many="" spelling="" mistakes.="" no="" evidence="" of="" proof="" reading.="" report="" f="" ormat="" inadequate.="" less="" than="" 1800="" words.="" insuf="" f="" icient="" use="" of="" language="" and="" syntax.="" several="" spelling="" mistakes.="" litt="" le="" evidence="" of="" proof="" reading.="" report="" f="" ormat="" inadequate.="" less="" than="" 1800="" words.="" satisfactory="" (3)="" good="" (4)="" very="" good="" (5)="" excellent="" (6)="" generally,="" reasonably="" correct="" use="" of="" language.="" frequent="" grammar,="" punctuation="" and="" spelling="" mistakes.="" use="" of="" inappropriate="" language.="" report="" set="" out="" in="" f="" air="" manner.="" generally="" correct="" use="" of="" language.="" few="" grammar,="" spelling="" and="" punctuation="" mistakes.="" report="" well="" set="" out.="" correct="" use="" of="" language.="" few="" grammar,="" spelling="" and="" punctuation="" mistakes.="" report="" expertly="" set="" out.="" scholarly="" use="" of="" correct="" language="" throughout.="" correct="" grammar,="" spelling="" and="" punctuation.="" report="" expertly="" and="" scholarly="" set="" out.="" 12079631_ikechukwu_iheanacho_a1.docx="" by="" ikechukwu="" iheanacho="" 12079631_ikechukwu_iheanacho_a1.docx="" originality="" report="" primary="" sources="" 12079631_ikechukwu_iheanacho_a1.docx="" grademark="" report="" final="" grade="" general="" comments="" instructor="" rubric:="" mgmt20132="" a1="" t2="" 2018="" 5.30="" 6="" w="" w="" w="" .volvogroup.com="" th="" e="" v="" o="" lvo="" g="" ro="" u="" p="" 2="" 0="" 18="" volvo="" group="" annual="" and="" sustainability="" report="" 2018="" driving="" prosperity="" http://www.volvogroup.com="" driving="" prosperity="" through="" transport="" solutions="" the="" volvo="" group’s="" mission="" statement="" expresses="">